Michael Davey Film Annotation: Garbage Warrior Title: Garbage Warrior (2007), Director: Oliver Hodge
2. The central argument of Garbage Warrior stems from the story of visionary architect Mike Reynolds, hailing from New Mexico. Mike builds houses from garbage (mainly bottles and tires) and dirt called earth ships which can exist completely off the grid. These houses capture their own water from rainfall, have self sustained sewage treatment, do not require energy for heat and are built to use renewable electricity. After years of trial and error, Reynolds has perfected the design of the earth ship, but at a large cost. Over the years his designs iterated through errors resulting in houses which did not function as planned. For example, one house was constantly too warm, as in it captured too much heat from sunlight, thus resulting in uncomfortable temperatures. Mike considers all of this a crucial process of dreaming, designing and researching, which after 30 years, he believes he has just scratched the surface of what is possible. When the New Mexican government gets wind of what Mike has been up to, his architects license is promptly revoked on the local and national levels on the grounds of building homes that are not fit for living in. According to building standards, homes must meet basic needs of their inhabitants through power, sewage and water supply infrastructure. Mike’s homes provide all of those things, but not within the law. One of the main arguments of the film is that our legal system fails to accept things that are outside the law as progress, rather than rule breaking. As an architect, Reynolds pushes the envelope constantly and views the world’s issues as a state of emergency, while the legal system filibusters in an effort to protect the interests of the infrastructure.
3. The film draws out the issues of climate change and the legal system’s failure to address them effectively. Mike Reynolds began his battle to develop a subdivision which could serve as a test site for sustainable living environments in 2004. The issues the lawyers in Senate had with his bill were seemingly all about the wording of the document. However, it is drawn out that the legislators actually fear the implications of the bill on the economy through impact on the energy companies and jobs of citizens. A question drawn from this statement is, if we are surviving in a happy and secure environment, do we really need the infrastructure? I believe the answer is no, but the infrastructure needs us, and it has the power to punish us for avoiding it. Reynolds believes that when one lives in an earth ship, one has full ownership of their life. He further responds to the state officials that the energy companies like earth ships, because they provide adequate housing for people in areas where they would need to invest in infrastructure. Reynolds eventually develops his bill to state that he desires a test site where he will develop homes which will make it easier for citizens to develop sustainable living methods.
4. The most compelling parts of the film unfortunately highlight disaster. The inadequacy of our political system to deal with rapid change for the worse represents one of the most starkly horrifying concepts I’ve ever seen on film. Mike Reynolds clearly has worked since the 1970’s toward an ideal living environment for the preservation of the planet, however the politicians he had to lobby did not pass his bill which allowed work to continue, until after the film was made. Disaster prompted the bill’s passing after Reynolds was recognized by the US for his contributions abroad where disasters had hit. After the 2005 tsunami tragedy in the Bay of Bengal, Mike and his team leapt into action. They built an example earth ship, and during construction instructed the Indian engineers in how to build them for themselves. The community rallied around the project and adopted the process with great excitement. Mike’s design for this situation took into consideration the chance of a level 9 Richter earthquake and responded by using his typical tire foundation design but with a twist. Using the tires as a base, which is flexible, Mike built a floor of bamboo over the tires. In the case of an earthquake the tires would absorb the vibrations while the floor remained intact. The type of aid Reynolds’ team provided was sustainable. Instead of giving the community food or medical supplies, he educated them on how to build housing that would take care of them for an extended period of time. Mike Reynolds’ commitment to not just providing a service, but teaching others how to provide that service as well. He is not committed to making money, which he repeats throughout the film, he wants a better life for all people. His attitudes are not matched by those he presents to. The most compelling idea presented in the film comes when Mike Reynolds finally gets offered his license back in the US, but only after he had done noble work in disaster areas. Sustainable practices such as his require the unsustainable system to be destroyed before a new infrastructure can be built.
5. I was least compelled by the bits of the film on legislation. Interviews with the folks who were shutting Mike down would have been interesting to see, however these were few and far between. Unfortunately the scenes in the legislative setting highlight how out of context Mike is. They illustrate a character totally out of his element fighting as hard as possible to get something done. He eventually achieves his goal, but if other points of view on the bill were shown, I would have felt better informed about how the process went.
6. The audience best addresses believers in climate change who are open to dramatic change in lifestyle and support a deviation from the built up corporate infrastructure, or are on the fence about such issues. Despite the hardship the characters face, they maintain optimistic outlooks and continue to be proud of their work, constantly showing the worth of the earth ships and how they can benefit the people who live in them. Additionally the film highlights how dependent policy makers are on the corporate systems. They show great concern for the effect of the earth ship models on energy companies and citizens employed by them. Also, the film demonstrates well the ability of filibusters to retard the process of passing a bill if there are conflicts of interest. Viewers who lack understanding of how detrimental this process can be to progress are certainly a part of the target.
7. Hard data highlighting how much someone living in an earth ship can reduce the environmental impact of owning a home would benefit the viewer. Interviews with other architects or contractors would have added to the film in that those points of view would provide even more context for how Mike Reynolds’ designs are perceived. Also, as these homes have no mortgages. Mortgages make up a large portion of the financial industry and there was little consideration put toward future of our country’s industries outside of building if earth ships are adopted on a large scale. In 2008 there were 4.79 million existing single family home sales in the US. This number represents an extremely large infrastructure which was not investigated by Garbage Warrior.
8. The film doesn’t present clearly any points of intervention, but some that I would suggest are the necessity of voting carefully. We need to keep an eye on our legislators to make sure that they understand the urgency that exists around climate change and the housing industry’s impact on the overall sustainability of our way of life, both positive and negative. I think the most obvious point of action presented would be to support sustainable building techniques. Dirt! also presents sustainable builders as a great contributor to countering the effects of climate change. I think the overall takeaway for the individual would be to not allow the rules of the establishment constrain the process of idea generation. Policy can be changed to accommodate revolutionary solutions to widely accepted problems. Mike Reynolds proved this.
9. I sought out additional information about home mortgages. This industry represented 14.55 trillion dollars of outstanding debt in Q2 2009 (http://www.plunkettresearch.com/Industries/BankingMortgagesCredit/BankingMortgagesCreditStatistics/tabid/233/Default.aspx). The number of these mortgages which are foreclosing has increased greatly increased since the housing bubble burst. Of those who still have mortgages outstanding, 23% of them were underwater in June 2010 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/26/number-of-underwater-mort_n_696210.html). This means the homeowner owes more than the house is worth. This phenomenon resulted from a combination of people qualifying for big loans and then refinancing as their houses grew in value. When their values plummeted, the owners were left underwater.
I also looked at the earth ships website. http://earthship.com/buildings/global . After viewing the film, I was on the bandwagon and wanted to see if it was feasible for me to build an earth ship and what the costs would be like. Essentially, the building process costs the same as conventional building, but the cost is made up by the absence of utility bills and interest payments. I live in a cold climate, but the website assures the reader that earth ships can be built and effectively utilized in any climate.
Film Annotation: Garbage Warrior
Title: Garbage Warrior (2007), Director: Oliver Hodge
2. The central argument of Garbage Warrior stems from the story of visionary architect Mike Reynolds, hailing from New Mexico. Mike builds houses from garbage (mainly bottles and tires) and dirt called earth ships which can exist completely off the grid. These houses capture their own water from rainfall, have self sustained sewage treatment, do not require energy for heat and are built to use renewable electricity. After years of trial and error, Reynolds has perfected the design of the earth ship, but at a large cost. Over the years his designs iterated through errors resulting in houses which did not function as planned. For example, one house was constantly too warm, as in it captured too much heat from sunlight, thus resulting in uncomfortable temperatures. Mike considers all of this a crucial process of dreaming, designing and researching, which after 30 years, he believes he has just scratched the surface of what is possible. When the New Mexican government gets wind of what Mike has been up to, his architects license is promptly revoked on the local and national levels on the grounds of building homes that are not fit for living in. According to building standards, homes must meet basic needs of their inhabitants through power, sewage and water supply infrastructure. Mike’s homes provide all of those things, but not within the law. One of the main arguments of the film is that our legal system fails to accept things that are outside the law as progress, rather than rule breaking. As an architect, Reynolds pushes the envelope constantly and views the world’s issues as a state of emergency, while the legal system filibusters in an effort to protect the interests of the infrastructure.
3. The film draws out the issues of climate change and the legal system’s failure to address them effectively. Mike Reynolds began his battle to develop a subdivision which could serve as a test site for sustainable living environments in 2004. The issues the lawyers in Senate had with his bill were seemingly all about the wording of the document. However, it is drawn out that the legislators actually fear the implications of the bill on the economy through impact on the energy companies and jobs of citizens. A question drawn from this statement is, if we are surviving in a happy and secure environment, do we really need the infrastructure? I believe the answer is no, but the infrastructure needs us, and it has the power to punish us for avoiding it. Reynolds believes that when one lives in an earth ship, one has full ownership of their life. He further responds to the state officials that the energy companies like earth ships, because they provide adequate housing for people in areas where they would need to invest in infrastructure. Reynolds eventually develops his bill to state that he desires a test site where he will develop homes which will make it easier for citizens to develop sustainable living methods.
4. The most compelling parts of the film unfortunately highlight disaster. The inadequacy of our political system to deal with rapid change for the worse represents one of the most starkly horrifying concepts I’ve ever seen on film. Mike Reynolds clearly has worked since the 1970’s toward an ideal living environment for the preservation of the planet, however the politicians he had to lobby did not pass his bill which allowed work to continue, until after the film was made. Disaster prompted the bill’s passing after Reynolds was recognized by the US for his contributions abroad where disasters had hit. After the 2005 tsunami tragedy in the Bay of Bengal, Mike and his team leapt into action. They built an example earth ship, and during construction instructed the Indian engineers in how to build them for themselves. The community rallied around the project and adopted the process with great excitement. Mike’s design for this situation took into consideration the chance of a level 9 Richter earthquake and responded by using his typical tire foundation design but with a twist. Using the tires as a base, which is flexible, Mike built a floor of bamboo over the tires. In the case of an earthquake the tires would absorb the vibrations while the floor remained intact. The type of aid Reynolds’ team provided was sustainable. Instead of giving the community food or medical supplies, he educated them on how to build housing that would take care of them for an extended period of time. Mike Reynolds’ commitment to not just providing a service, but teaching others how to provide that service as well. He is not committed to making money, which he repeats throughout the film, he wants a better life for all people. His attitudes are not matched by those he presents to. The most compelling idea presented in the film comes when Mike Reynolds finally gets offered his license back in the US, but only after he had done noble work in disaster areas. Sustainable practices such as his require the unsustainable system to be destroyed before a new infrastructure can be built.
5. I was least compelled by the bits of the film on legislation. Interviews with the folks who were shutting Mike down would have been interesting to see, however these were few and far between. Unfortunately the scenes in the legislative setting highlight how out of context Mike is. They illustrate a character totally out of his element fighting as hard as possible to get something done. He eventually achieves his goal, but if other points of view on the bill were shown, I would have felt better informed about how the process went.
6. The audience best addresses believers in climate change who are open to dramatic change in lifestyle and support a deviation from the built up corporate infrastructure, or are on the fence about such issues. Despite the hardship the characters face, they maintain optimistic outlooks and continue to be proud of their work, constantly showing the worth of the earth ships and how they can benefit the people who live in them. Additionally the film highlights how dependent policy makers are on the corporate systems. They show great concern for the effect of the earth ship models on energy companies and citizens employed by them. Also, the film demonstrates well the ability of filibusters to retard the process of passing a bill if there are conflicts of interest. Viewers who lack understanding of how detrimental this process can be to progress are certainly a part of the target.
7. Hard data highlighting how much someone living in an earth ship can reduce the environmental impact of owning a home would benefit the viewer. Interviews with other architects or contractors would have added to the film in that those points of view would provide even more context for how Mike Reynolds’ designs are perceived. Also, as these homes have no mortgages. Mortgages make up a large portion of the financial industry and there was little consideration put toward future of our country’s industries outside of building if earth ships are adopted on a large scale. In 2008 there were 4.79 million existing single family home sales in the US. This number represents an extremely large infrastructure which was not investigated by Garbage Warrior.
8. The film doesn’t present clearly any points of intervention, but some that I would suggest are the necessity of voting carefully. We need to keep an eye on our legislators to make sure that they understand the urgency that exists around climate change and the housing industry’s impact on the overall sustainability of our way of life, both positive and negative. I think the most obvious point of action presented would be to support sustainable building techniques. Dirt! also presents sustainable builders as a great contributor to countering the effects of climate change. I think the overall takeaway for the individual would be to not allow the rules of the establishment constrain the process of idea generation. Policy can be changed to accommodate revolutionary solutions to widely accepted problems. Mike Reynolds proved this.
9. I sought out additional information about home mortgages. This industry represented 14.55 trillion dollars of outstanding debt in Q2 2009 (http://www.plunkettresearch.com/Industries/BankingMortgagesCredit/BankingMortgagesCreditStatistics/tabid/233/Default.aspx). The number of these mortgages which are foreclosing has increased greatly increased since the housing bubble burst. Of those who still have mortgages outstanding, 23% of them were underwater in June 2010 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/26/number-of-underwater-mort_n_696210.html). This means the homeowner owes more than the house is worth. This phenomenon resulted from a combination of people qualifying for big loans and then refinancing as their houses grew in value. When their values plummeted, the owners were left underwater.
I also looked at the earth ships website. http://earthship.com/buildings/global . After viewing the film, I was on the bandwagon and wanted to see if it was feasible for me to build an earth ship and what the costs would be like. Essentially, the building process costs the same as conventional building, but the cost is made up by the absence of utility bills and interest payments. I live in a cold climate, but the website assures the reader that earth ships can be built and effectively utilized in any climate.